Throughout the week, early adopters have been reporting the arrival of their consumer version Oculus Rifts (CV1). But with this new consumer market comes new user challenges.
It’s no secret that virtual reality can induce motion sickness. In the early days, much of that discomfort was attributed to hardware limitations. The Oculus DK1, for example, was notorious for delivering a slightly juddery — if not jarring — experience. But those were stepping stones.
We’ve now reached a point where consumer-grade VR hardware can offer a substantial experience that doesn’t inherently cause sickness.
Which brings us to content. Oculus Home — the official platform for Facebook’s headset — categorises its content in three levels of intensity: Comfortable, Moderate, and Intense. But what about users whose endurance falls outside these categories? Users who find certain apps or games simply too intense to use?
Currently, Oculus maintains an “all sales are final” stance on purchases made through Home. But is this really the best approach?
The VR market today pits two main PC platforms — SteamVR and Oculus Home — against each other in a battle that some have dubbed “the console wars on PC.”
In a recent Reddit post, user kenman884 detailed their experience trying to return a game they deemed not fit for purpose. In most consumer markets, this alone would warrant a refund — especially if requested promptly and, in the case of digital downloads, where product damage is a non-issue.
However, the interaction between buyer and seller didn’t unfold that way. Kenman884 opened a support ticket explaining the issue, only to receive the following response from Oculus:
“I understand you are unhappy with your experience playing VR Karts on the Oculus Rift and would like a refund.
We realise it can be frustrating when an app or game does not meet your expectations; however, all purchases from the Oculus Store are final.
Please let me know if I can help with anything else.”
It’s difficult to understand the reasoning behind an “all sales are final” policy — particularly in such an emerging, experimental market. While it may not be intended this way, the stance risks coming across as money-grabbing. Regardless of intent, it seems unfair that early adopters, who have already made a significant investment in this new technology, should be left with content they can’t effectively use.
It’s also worth noting that Valve introduced a refund policy for digital downloads on June 2, 2015 — allowing users to request refunds on games and DLC for up to 14 days after purchase.
By contrast, Oculus’s rigid approach seems detrimental to its broader goals. One of the biggest advantages of VR entering the consumer market is the feedback loop it enables — helping developers understand what works and what doesn’t. In many ways, a refund request is the most comprehensive form of feedback for content that misses the mark.
Since kenman884’s story surfaced on Reddit, the prevailing sentiment in the community is clear: it’s better to buy VR content on Steam. Just last month, we discussed how software sales are key to offsetting thin margins on hardware. Could Oculus be undermining its own ecosystem by refusing to offer a refund policy?
We’d love to hear your thoughts — share them in the comments below.
Section 4.11 — Oculus Terms of Service:
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/
